The American Spectator : Promises, Promises

Text Size

Promises, Promises

By Ben Stein on 1.28.11 @ 6:10AM

A few more humble notes for Mr. Obama about where we are today.

A few more humble notes for Mr. Obama about where we are today….

During the run up to the recent Congressional elections, I was on Larry King Live with a super smart man whose name I have forgotten. Larry asked a smart question. The question was, “Is Barack Obama a better campaigner than a President?” One of the men on the panel said, “Of course he is. When he is campaigning, all he has to do is promise things. When he’s President, he actually has to do things.”

The same is true for all politicians, but the problem is acute for Mr. Obama because he has promised things he simply cannot do.

He cannot make the U.S. more competitive with the Far East and with Germany unless and until he gets U.S. education up to a far better level than it is at now. He cannot do this without revolutionizing the lives of young Americans, turning them from sex, drugs, rap, and rock ‘n’ roll to studying. This is far beyond his poor power to do. He cannot make an American worker who demands $30 an hour competitive with a Taiwanese worker who will work for $2 an hour with just as good equipment. He cannot make American college students who want to study film production into competitors with Chinese engineers. (Although I should say that America leads the world in making money off mass culture because we have by far the most imaginative and creative people on this planet in this arena living within a small radius in Southern California. Studying film production is not studying engineering but for the nation’s future, it might be better than studying engineering.)

My old dad used to tell me that the reason U.S. workers could get paid so much more than Far Eastern workers was that our workers had so much better equipment to work with. This is not necessarily true any longer, and so our wages must very slowly move towards parity with Chinese wages. This will be a slow, but painful process.

President Obama seems to simply not “get it” about solar power and wind. When we taxpayers spend money to design better solar and wind power systems, those systems wind up getting made in the Far East. How this helps our workers is a mystery to me.

I also love President Obama endlessly referring to “clean coal.” There is no such thing as “clean coal.” Coal is coal. They can use all kinds of technology to immensely reduce pollution from coal. But there is no such magical thing as “clean coal.” This is not a problem for me at all. I am happy with whatever kind of coal anyone wants to burn to keep the lights on. But this idea that there is some magic thing called “clean coal” that is as non-polluting as wind is just nonsense. It is a bit worrisome to keep hearing Mr. Obama, our president, talking about something that is just a fantasy.

You know, I am getting so tired of fighting these battles… I think I will just go to sleep now. I’ll fight more tomorrow.

About the Author

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes “Ben Stein’s Diary” for every issue of The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (155) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 1.28.11 @ 6:30AM

Obama has a sophomore dream: that somebody else will build it, and he will take the credit and the profits and rule it the way the King does in storybooks.

Since Obama has insulted the only people in the world who still have Monarchy, and since he is Mr. 20 year old know it all anyway, he has no opportunity to ask a real Monarch how that trick actually works. Perhaps the old story of the Sword of Damocles would be instructive in this regard, if he can download it onto his iPod or something.

The problem with these silly fantasies of his is that most of us had these silly fantasies 40 years ago and WE grew out of them when we went to work in the real world. Obama has NEVER GONE TO WORK IN THE REAL WORLD, so he has kept his fantasies. What Obama needs is A JOB.

Unfortunatlely he doesnt seem to be qualified for one.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.28.11 @ 7:27AM

Ditto!

PaulD| 1.28.11 @ 7:38AM

Appleby, you hit a home run with that comment! Obama is particularly unqualified for the job he has.

The Bishop| 1.28.11 @ 8:30AM

Ditto, ditto!

Tomas| 1.28.11 @ 12:58PM

"[Obama] cannot make an American worker who demands $30 an hour competitive with a Taiwanese worker who will work for $2 an hour with just as good equipment."

And the Taiwanese worker does as good a job as the American worker.

You know why Mexicans are coming to America? It's not the free health care. It's the fact they can have any "menial" job they want. Americans call these jobs "menial," but they are absolutely essential to our economy... roofing, garden care, , service, fast food.

Americans see these jobs as beneath them. They won't do them, even if they are staring them in the face.

There's nothing Obama can do about this. No politician can. It's a societal thing. As such, it's our duty to make those changes.

"During the run up to the recent Congressional elections, I was on Larry King Live with a super smart man whose name I have forgotten."

I almost peed my pants at this one. Ben, you are a light in the darkness!

Tomas| 1.28.11 @ 1:15PM

"He cannot make American college students who want to study film production into competitors with Chinese engineers."

OK. As a filmmaking major, I don't know whether to take umbrage with this, or to shake my head in familiar shame.

I got lucky. Right out of college I got a job in TV production. As producer-director at a PBS station I was given far more latitude and opportunity than a commercial station could offer.

Because of that I was able to create TV programs that went on to win state and national awards.

I didn't need to work in film. Or, maybe I WAS working in film.....

But, Ben's right. The vast majority of my classmates never got a chance to do any work in the field they love so dearly.

So, I guess I can do both: umbrage and shame.

But, getting to play with the Big Boy toys WAS a blast!

buckeyeman| 1.29.11 @ 11:04AM

Don't forget, Thomas, that you are paid by the involuntary and unwilling confiscation of my money. I don't watch much PBS because it is usually a leftist stinkfest. You care about your "state and national awards" but I DON'T. Get a job and win an award in the real world and then (maybe) I'll have some respect for you.

Bob K.| 1.28.11 @ 2:43PM

Tomas,
I read your comments, this one and the one below.

May I ask an question?

Why don't you send your children out to do these menial $2.00 an hour jobs that are absolutely essential to the economy? Or are you training them for something better, whatever that happens to be.

Ben doesn't seem to know either. His father told him that when the foreigners equipment got better our wages would have to come down to their level or we would be in big trouble.

So Ben got tired and went to bed. Maybe when he wakes up tomorrow he will have a better idea.

Nancy in NC| 1.28.11 @ 3:44PM

A start would be to stop paying people that have never worked and don't intend to work. Many of them used to do the work the illegals are now doing. Hunger is a wonderful motivator.

I would be willing to subsidize those people to bring them to a real living wage, but it's a disservice to allow people to become slaves of the system, even if they don't seem to mind.

Icrashgood | 1.28.11 @ 8:25PM

My sister in law said " people should not have to work if they don't want to. It should be up to the working people to support them and provide them with what they want no matter what it is."And she voted for Obama because he would give all of it to her.Bless her little commie heart...

Ned| 1.28.11 @ 11:16AM

He's certainly not qualified for the job he's got now, but far be it from us peons to talk about it.

Of course, if anyone in the LSM had demanded his transcripts or actually discussed his past, we might be talking about President Hillary now, and that just makes my skin crawl... couldn't crawl any worse than it does every time I hear this charlatan talk, but at least more people would recognize that "we" elected another crook.

Oh, oops! I criticized The One. I must be a racist. Oh my.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:16AM

"Oh, oops! I criticized The One. I must be a racist. Oh my."

Not for criticizing Obama, but for calling him "The One" you may just be a racist.

Obama was never a great choice, just better than any of the others on either side.

Next time, try for some less pitiful candidates.

Baby Driver| 1.30.11 @ 7:17PM

Sheet, Palin is hands down better that Obama will ever be.

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:42AM

I thought he bowed down to the only people in the world who still have Monarchy, the Saudis.

Redstateboy| 1.28.11 @ 3:14PM

Appleby and Stein - nailed it. What's truly Sad to me....?? Is how many people actually believe this boobs BS.. He could say practically Anything! and his fawning syncophant (Vtwin) Lemmings just open up their Maws and say... "Feed Me Seymour!"

old white guy| 1.28.11 @ 4:06PM

obama the commie is obama the idiot. all commies are idiots. the u.s. is full of them and they are rapidly being replaced by the idiot islamists

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:17AM

Yet they are out idioted by old white guys.

Baby Driver| 1.30.11 @ 7:19PM

This proves it, Bob is an idiot.

George Kimball| 1.29.11 @ 2:20AM

BEN STEIN your attention please...

ENERGY - there is a solution now. BEN, the press needs to take this up big time (maybe even responsibly). It needs a champion badly.
Are you listening, Ben?

All of you table-bangers, do your country and children a favor and learn about new nuclear technology which has come a looong way in the years since Three Mile Island.
There is today, now, a nuke technology (breeder & electro-diffusion) that slays all three dragons of conventional (light-water) nukes - waste disposal, safety and proliferation. It: 1- has much less waste and the waste itself is much less radioactive; 2 - lends itself to reactor designs that are intrinsically safe (overheating slows down the reaction) and 3 - does not require weapons-grade fuel. For icing on the cake, it can use existing nuke and weap0ns waste as fuel, of which there is enough for hundreds of years of electricity.

Don't believe me? Go read Dec. 2005 Scientific American "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste"

Quit stewing about oil, shale, natural gas, Saudi Arabia, CO2 and put your efforts into something that will work.

BANG THE GONG, dammit!

If the US doesn't get on the stick NOW a new and vital tech industry will be developed by other nations - and they will also reap the rewards. In fact it has already started...

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:20AM

"does not require weapons-grade fuel"

Ordinary nuclear reactors, as we use now, do not require weapons-grade fuel. Weapons grade is something in the range of 90%+ concentrated. Nuclear reactors are on the order of 6%.

But you are right, we do need to look into new nuclear tech. For one thing, all them nukes out there can be disassembled, but the nuclear material is still there, and could be made into another bomb. Turn it into nuclear reactor fuel and it will, eventually, all be gone. And it will pay for the storage, and guarding, charges by being useful.

justasimplepatriot| 1.28.11 @ 7:28AM

I have a friend in the used industrial equipment business. I ran into him the other day and asked how his business was doing.

"Never better. American manufacturers are selling off equipment at a pace never seen before and China is buying every piece they can get their hands on."

A chill goes down my spine......

Rick V.| 1.28.11 @ 9:21AM

Yes, I feel it to. But we were warned by the proto-Obama: we are selling the socialists the rope by which they will hang us.

buckeyeman| 1.29.11 @ 11:10AM

Before WWII my grandmother gave away some scrap steel to some charity for the benefit of Japan. My grandfather blew a gasket and said "some American boy is going to get that steel back, someday." He didn't live to see it but his son, my uncle Joe indeed received the repayment. On Saipan. We never learn.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:23AM

"we are selling the socialists the rope by which they will hang us."

Yes, *YOU* are. We working class people aren't selling them any factories or sending them our jobs.

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:49AM

Do you mean they are manufacturing equipment and selling it, or that they are selling equipment they used to use to manufacture?

old progrmr| 1.28.11 @ 3:49PM

They are selling excess manufacturing equipment out of abandoned factories. Just think how much state of the art equipment (robots, automated press lines, welding systems, computerized industrial controls, computer numerical controls, etc.) has flowed out of those many, many GM factories through the hands of brokers directly to China and other Asian countries - this is a tragedy of earth shaking proportions - AND NOBODY GIVES A DAMN!

BackToBasics| 1.30.11 @ 2:50PM

A question I think everyone should ask is why is it that globalization as wanted by the elites in the West should necessarily "dictate" that the advances of the east and 3rd world should be facilitated by the decline of the west?

From what I see, in the overall large picture, that is how politics and economics for the west and maybe America more-so has been framed since 1990.

Even your post about the selling of wholly intact but idle factories to the east fits into this picture.

I am not a globalist but even if I were the model that is being followed in the west that the 3rd world can only rise at the expense of the west is mistaken. The 3rd world could rise, maybe even faster if each of the NATIONS of the west was allowed to to compete for the economic leadership while hoping that increased prosperity worldwide would lead to a smoother transition to the globalization that is so coveted by the western elites. Again, I am not a globalist but I argue the point that there could have been another "model" to follow in trying to implement this. My original question was why use the model that coerces the decline of the west in favor of and to facilitate the rise of the east and 3rd world?

I could see the political forces that were shaping this over 25 years ago but a major event occurred on March 14, 2000 when Clinton used Janet Reno to file the antitrust suit against using Microsoft's browser as the default browser for the internet. The next day the tech bubble burst on the stock market and things have never been the same since.

But why go after Microsoft on a questionable antitrust lawsuit? I think it had to do more with Bill Gates and all he represented to the the establishment in Washington and the West in general. He was a techie who didn't care to hobnob with the DC crowd. His paper worth was also at 92 billion and rising.

DC elites feared him and "American" techies in general. They were mostly lawyers and felt threatened by a tech field they did not know and the wealth of those who were inclined in this field.

So, they went after Gates and in subsequent years allowed massive infusions of non-white engineers into the country as well as the outsourcing of much technical expertise to the east. They did this at the expense of mostly white engineers in America and the west. As I said above, they feared "American" techies.

So, to me this points to the fact that the elites fear intelligent whites who are not politicians more than anything else. They also feared the fact that whites were the ones mostly involved in the tech revolutions that occurred in the 1980's and 1990's. Minorities were being increasingly left behind educationally and in earning power.

So, the elites got a triple-hwammy in the ensuing policy changes. By purposefully diminishing the accomplishments of white engineers in America in the west, they solved three "problems" at once:
1. They diminished through trade and visa laws, an intelligent group (technical people) that they feared they could not control.
2. They decreased the disparity between whites and non-whites in America and especially the white people inclined to the technology science sectors.
3. They facilitated the rise of the east and 3rd world for a hoped-for globalization at the expense of the west.

And the irony of it all is that China, India, Brazil and others do not even WANT this globalization and are not participating in it except for how it helps their own NATIONAL interests.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:21AM

I saw this 20 years ago. And the Chinese techs to operate it trained here.

Mimi| 1.28.11 @ 8:15AM

America needs to return to MAKING things.... no body in the world can out work us...out create things or out sell us.....What are we waiting for ?....The SHEER joy of knitting a sweater, knowing it may very well outlast you and one that the "TEACHER" compliments....in our own way we MUST create ....regardless of what or how.

Vern Crisler | 1.28.11 @ 8:38PM

Mimi, I believe you are mistaken on an important point. Ben mentions college students studying film production rather than engineering, and you favor making sweaters, etc.

But I think you need to remember the economic concept of comparative advantage, which Ben was alluding to. Even if we could do engineering and sweaters better than anyone else in the world, the opportunity costs would be too high.

As Ben says, we lead the world in making money at mass culture. This is because we lead the world in creativity. To turn away from this to something else would be very costly, and to our ultimate disadvantage.

Let each nation do what it is best at and trade freely with the rest of the world. That way lies prosperity for all.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:36AM

Vern, no. We do not lead the world in creativity. We have no special advantage there, and counting on such a special advantage is just a delaying tactic while they take us down. We can compete with anyone on a level field, but the field is not level. We are fools to try to compete when they hold all the high ground.

"Let each nation do what it is best at and trade freely with the rest of the world. That way lies prosperity for all."

That way lies the end of America. No nation is significantly better at anything than any other nation unless it's geography or climate is favored for that pursuit. Chinese are not inherently better at manufacturing than Americans. They just tilt the field and we play by their rules. Time to stop that.

This country was built on tariffs. Time to revive them.

Vern Crisler | 1.30.11 @ 2:15AM

In actual fact, ever since the Tariff of Abominations tariffs as a percentage of dutiable imports have been going down, down, down. And that occurred during America's most prosperous period. (See Mark Skousen, *Economic Logic*, 2008, p. 608.)

David W| 1.28.11 @ 8:44AM

hey, at least we have a President who knows where the library is..... unfortunately he seems to only go to the science fiction and fantasy section. I just wish he would go down the aisle where the "Economics for Dummies" and "Engineering for Dummies" books are.

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:50AM

I wish. The F&SF; section got us NASA and SDI. He is cutting those.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:43AM

SDI was always a fantasy. It never should have been taken seriously.

NASA doesn't need funding for a space shuttle that ain't flying anymore.

Time to get real and develop a new shuttle that will be the basis for the next 20 years of exploration.

Big D| 1.28.11 @ 12:28PM

You forgot "US CONSTITUTION for Dummies" (It is a real book).

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:37AM

Sorry, the dummies books are for right wingers.

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 9:07AM

Psssst. Ben. Just raise taxes on people like you, and all will be well - right? Hey, I have an idea: Let's throw money at the word "education!" That will solve everything!

Actually, even if wind and solar were entirely home-produced industries, they would still be a net drain on the economy.

Because the market has spoken already. Reality has rendered its verdict on wind and solar and biomass and pixie dust and unicorn tails. They don't work. They will never be an efficient allocation of resources; they will never yield sufficient energy that will offset the energy put into producing them. They will never replace fossil fuels as the lifeblood that courses through the veins of prosperity.

If we lived in reality, we would be drilling and mining and getting at the vast amounts of fossil fuels that are lying at our feet.

But we aren't going to do that; the hungry man would rather starve than grab the apple that is dangling in front of him because he chooses to believe the apple is evil.

Obama is not the disease. He is a symptom of the disease. The disease is that a critical mass of our culture has consciously chosen, since World War II - little by little, day by day - to ensconce itself in an utterly false consciousness.

At the root of this false consciousness is the insistence on viewing human beings not as real-world individuals, but as abstract members of various groups.

It was so much easier to go along with the Great Society than to fight it. After all, white guilt is a great motivator that never fails to nudge us into the mistaken notion that government redistribution of wealth works. That government can change human nature. That just a LITTLE more coercion will jump-start us into being a more caring, selfless civilization. Always just a little more stick, a little less carrot; Nirvana is JUST around the corner.

And so we embraced ever-larger welfare benefits because it made us feel better about ourselves while destroying the very people it was supposed to help; no matter. It absolved us of our own sins.

We kept ratcheting up minimum wage even though it is economically non-viable. We taught our children that they are owed something just for being born. And that, if they're successful, they must be punished.

We kept bloating the welfare state such that poor people in this country live like kings lived just a century ago.

We looked the other way as mainstream media went completely off the reservation because we are a wealthy country and hey, it's just cool to rail against "the man" and ostentatiously show "compassion" for the downtrodden.

We allowed Marxists to grab the reins of academe starting in Kindergarten because, well, it's just a natural youthful urge to embrace liberalism and who knows? Maybe leftism will turn todays kids into tomorrow's Ideal Human Beings.

We allowed government to unionize and then metastasize because people have to be rewarded for their "service." We allowed eminent domain to take our private property because we all agree that government is a force of good and knows best.

We allowed an entitlement society to create ever more victim groups who demand money every time they're "offended," and we gladly fork it over because that kind of moral redemption is cheap at twice the price.

We allowed government to strangle business by imposing onerous taxes, regulations and social engineering obligations on them, and then to blame those business for straining under the burden.

We allowed our borders to be opened to all comers because, ensconced in our comfy little lives, it was a way we could show people of color that we really do care sooo much for them; we're not snobs! Come one, come all! Of course, it's no skin off of these brave do-gooders' noses; someone else can deal with the disastrous consequences.

We allowed Obamacare to be implemented because we buy into the untenable concept of "social justice," even though that's just another way of saying "marxism's foot is in the door." We don't care that Obamacare will raise the cost of health care, not lower it, that it will add people to the rolls of the uninsured, not subtract them, that it will lower the quality of care for every single person in the US, not raise it. But it sure makes us feel proud that we can call health care a civil right.

We allowed ourselves to maintain our fantasies by agreeing that we'd keep phony books on all of these entitlements and obese bureaucracies and kick the can down the road forever. Hey, as long as a corrupt politician gets re-elected and his constituents are either patting themselves on the backs for their generosity to big brother or else standing with their hands out for a piece of the action, it's all good,right?

We allowed juvenile sensibilities to command the heights of our popular culture so that now the children are in control and the zeitgeist becomes ever more adolescent, ever more narcissistic, obsessed with hip possessions, easy sex, cool posturing and emulating the "cool kids" - and they don't come cooler than Barack Obama, who embodies what our culture has become.

We now live entirely within a cocoon that has no interface with reality. Instead of industry and making things that work in the real world, our society runs entirely on moral vanity - an ethos that is entirely removed from the values and ethics that built this country.

We simply cannot turn the titanic around in time to avoid the iceberg. Because when reality shatters the cocoon - and it's already begun to crack - the false consciousness that has fueled our culture for 70 years will dry up and blow away.

And the first people to be cast into the dark, icy ocean will be the moral scolds, like Obama, and the vain, useless cheerleaders who prayed to him even as he slashed the throat of this country.

cuban pete| 1.28.11 @ 9:18AM

Once again the G man knocks it out of the park.

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 9:23AM

Thanks, Cuban Pete - coming from you, that means a lot.

I wish it weren't true.

Anthony| 1.28.11 @ 11:55AM

I'll second that. Game, set, and match to the G man.

Bloefeld| 1.28.11 @ 11:58AM

Perfect, you use a phrase I am fond of "magic pixie dust." Of course if you could have worked in unobtainium and upsydasium you would have hit on the trifecta. But your point is well made without them.

One of the biggest problems for non-engineers like Obama is that their ignorance of basic physics allows them to believe in things that are impossible.

If only he knew about the Second Law of Thermodynamics he would be digging for oil on the White House lawn, or at the very least putting a nice aircraft carrier style nuke plant in it.

The same problem applies to the average (or below average) American. Since 'Truth" is fungible, magical thinking comes to the fore.

It seems to me as though most Americans cannot muster up the brain-power to understand that at some point there are not enough folks paying taxes to cover their swell lifestyles and pay the great monster debt.
Thanks for the great comment.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 1:23PM

Thanks, Bloefeld.

Yeah, I'm not even an engineer - I'm in the arts for chrissakes, but I do remember a basic physics-for-poets class I took in college some 30 years ago. Even back then, the prof spent a fair amount of time telling us why wind and solar won't ever replace fossil fuels.

And I learned there about the second law of thermodynamics which, as my body can attest, is an ineluctable reality of the physical world.

I wish I had included unobtainium and upsydasium in my diatribe. After all, these two elements are no less fanciful than CO2 emissions creating the global warming that has, in keeping with liberal logic, thrust the planet into global cooling.

As for the economic picture, I wish people could muster the brain power to realize this: When there are more people in the cart than there are pulling the cart, the cart stops moving.

Richard Ong| 1.28.11 @ 3:23PM

Excellent. Thanks for all the work that went into that.

old progrmr| 1.28.11 @ 3:53PM

Great post! Pretty well sums it all up; I wish I were not so pessimistic, but facts are facts.

old white guy| 1.28.11 @ 4:11PM

i keep saying stupid is the problem. wisdom is found in very few places in the u.s. of a.

Redstateboy| 1.28.11 @ 5:16PM

G-Man? Ya nailed it clean...

when the fall comes?? bess make sure you got plenty of Ammo.. cause it's gonna get ugly.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:55AM

"... since World War II - little by little, day by day - to ensconce itself in an utterly false consciousness.

At the root of this false consciousness is the insistence on viewing human beings not as real-world individuals, but as abstract members of various groups."

So, are you trying to tell us, before WWII people were not viewed as abstract members of groups? Are you trying to tell us Jews were never denied rights, blacks were never discriminated against, there never were signs saying "no Irish"? Are you saying Indians and Mexicans have always been accepted as just like everyone else?

What fantasy world did you grow up in?

"...It was so much easier to go along with the Great Society than to fight it."

The Great Society was a jobs based program. So, you think it was right to fight that?

"And so we embraced ever-larger welfare benefits because it made us feel better about ourselves while destroying the very people it was supposed to help; no matter. "

You do live in fantasy land.

"We kept ratcheting up minimum wage even though it is economically non-viable."

Adjusted for inflation the minimum wage is lower than it was in 1970. Before that the minimum wage was higher, and America was a more wealthy nation, in any real sense.

Average hourly wages in this country peaked in 1973. Now aren't you proud of what your people did?

" We taught our children that they are owed something just for being born. "

You must have been a bad parent.

"We kept bloating the welfare state such that poor people in this country live like kings lived just a century ago."

Only kings of extremely poor countries. Do you have anything to say that is based on reality?

"...We allowed government to unionize and then metastasize because people have to be rewarded for their "service."

You object to service? You want it all for nothing? Clinton was the only president to actually shrink the govt. Reagan and Bush I and Bush II exploded it. Where were you when they were doing that?

" We allowed eminent domain to take our private property because we all agree that government is a force of good and knows best."

Eminent domain is in the constitution. Or do you need the constitution for dummies book?

Take a couple chill pills and call me in the morning. Better yet, don't.

Donna| 1.28.11 @ 9:27AM

Ben, I am glad you went to sleep instead of going on about the youth’s inadequacies and our education system failing. You must have been sleeping when a youth turned in a wallet with a lot of cash, and a young father found the owner of a 12ct yellow diamond, the lists go on. Our youth have available some of the best education in the world! Whether parents get engaged in that is what this is all about. No amount of money will make that different. Many union teachers have only one goal (pension & retirement healthcare). Take this off the backs of youth being spoiled, over-indulged, rapping, screwing and the other stuff you listed ... the blame belongs on the parents-more is learned in the home regardless of public school, private school or home school. No unionized teacher will ever change what goes on in the home and neither will our tax dollars that goes to this so called fantasy of better education. It’s all an Obama scam.

Regarding pay issues, let me ask you if you have ever manufactured anything? I didn't think so...got back to bed.

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:48AM

Instead of carping, why not explain what he is missing. His Dad, Herbert Stein, was a major economist, and probably had a pretty good idea of what he was talking about. What is it that will cause us to stay ahead?

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 12:37PM

One sentence, mzk1:

The only thing that will save us from ruinous collapse is a turn away from the delusion of government as the Great Arbitrator and Provider of All Things, and back to individual responsibility.

Stein wants it both ways - he wants a grandiose welfare state AND a free market. It won't work (in spite of Paul Krugman's lastest lies).

The welfare state is a parasite on the free market and will suck the blood out of its host until all the life is leeched out of the host. The appetite of government is literally limitless.

And Obama's SOTU promised more of the same. Someone should explain to our genius in chief how money works. Because I have a feeling he thinks that you can't be overdrawn as long as you still have unused checks in your checkbook.

beebop| 1.28.11 @ 8:55PM

"Stein wants it both ways - he wants a grandiose welfare state ...."

Where in God's name do you see evidence that Stein wants a "welfare" state? Please. Try to remain grounded.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:57AM

"Stein wants it both ways - he wants a grandiose welfare state AND a free market. It won't work (in spite of Paul Krugman's lastest lies)."

That last sentence is your lie. Krugman has never been an advocate of the welfare state. Oh, and there is no free market, never has been anywhere in the world.

CWD| 1.28.11 @ 1:09PM

Hi Donna, at one time in the past I would agree with you hands down. However. Have you looked into the union run educational system lately? There are parents fined and/or jailed for trying to help with their children's academics and protect them from what their forced to participate in while schooled from kindergarten through higher education levels. (ie) teaching of immoral acts as okay, and many Christian and American Patriotic beliefs are no longer tolerated thus the text books are dissected of many historical facts along with a long list of items altered to conform with Progressive/Socialist teachings. So it's not just parents. It's in my opinion, It's SOCIETY, which actually puts the blame on all of us for allowing this to happen. It's sorta like taking a wrong turn on the road. Now it's time to back track and regain our bearings .

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:59AM

"Hi Donna, at one time in the past I would agree with you hands down. However. Have you looked into the union run educational system lately?"

What union run educational system? Tell us how wonderful Texas schools are where less than 1% of teachers have a union contract. Or the dozen other states where it's less than 10%.

Unions don't run the educational system in any state in the country. Elected school boards do, and they are quite often conservative run. The problem with the schools is a generation of right wingers bashing them.

Tom in Michigan| 1.28.11 @ 2:33PM

The problem is; in too many homes there are no parents, or only one, or the kids all have different dads none of whom stuck around - all thanks to the Great Society and the leftist destruction of the American family.

Scratch a problem in America and, you'll find a leftist "idea" at the root of it (and, don't anybody waste your or my time telling me about the "greedy bankers" - the ones behind the financial crisis like Herbert and Marion Sandler and Anthony Mozilo are all leftist or leftist cronies).

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:01AM

"The problem is; in too many homes there are no parents, or only one, or the kids all have different dads none of whom stuck around - all thanks to the Great Society and the leftist destruction of the American family"

Bet you can't back that up. Bet you can't find one bit of proof that is what happened.

I say it you right wingers on your mission to destroy the middle class in this country.

da monk| 1.28.11 @ 10:23AM

Per Mark Twain: Everybody complains about the weather, and nobody does anything about it"
Similarly: Everybody complains how the government is now being run and nobody offers any suggestions...other than "cut taxes" "cut spending" ad infitium. Everything above is negative with no positive suggestions. It's easy to complain with no responsiblities.

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 11:13AM

Classic liberal. You simply cannot hear the suggestions.

Just the other day, about 12 posters gave you myriad suggestions as to what to cut. Can you not read? Are you stupid? You certainly aren't serious.

You remind me of Barack Obama. He's that curlish teenager who's our president. Actually, it's all of you phonies.

You say, "If Republicans have suggestions on how to bring down health care costs, we'll listen!"

So the GOP says:

Allow portability across state lines;
Enact tort reform;
Enact malpractice reform;
Decouple health care from employers by offering tax incentives for individual purchase;
Allow citizens to create pools;
Incentivize HSAs by freeing the restrictions and allowing them to roll over;
Get serious about going after medicare fraud - the FRAUD in Medicare totals more each year than the top 7 insurance companies make in profits.

And you blink stupidly with a slack jaw and reply, "If Republicans have suggestions on how to bring down health care costs, we'll listen!"

Helloooo, da monk. Anybody in there, or you just a robot?

Just as the point of OBamacare is NOT to bring down health care costs - which was the original reason for it, and now they've dropped the matter of cost all together - the point of your phony cries for suggestions is NOT to receive suggestions. It's to shut your eyes and ears to reality and make your fellow man lie prostrate before the State.

What you don't understand about the size of goverment is that you can't cut spending without cutting spending. Well, that's going to be forced on you sooner than you think - and "poof" goes your Utopia, to be replaced by a Lord of the Flies like hell.

And you STILL won't get it.

Ned| 1.28.11 @ 11:30AM

See comment by "Cuban Pete" - above... I concur.

Some additional comments for "da monk" - health care and medical insurance costs in the US are out of control and rising DUE TO government interference, not DISPITE it. Same with the cost of education. The more rules, regulations, restrictions and our money that politicians throw at problems that are in large part CREATED by government the more we exacerbate those problems. So, it stands to reason that getting Barry and Company the hell out of the doctor's office, prices will at least stabilize, if not come down.

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 12:03PM

Thanks, Ned:

The same is true of the whole housing debacle - it ws Uncle Sam who made our economy come crashing down due to its tampering with market forces. And, typical of government, once they fuck something up good and proper, they tell us that they're the ones to ride in on white steed to the rescue, and, quick as you can say "Government," they turn a debacle into a disaster. Every single time.

But for Da Monk and liberals the world over, what matters is that they feel better about themselves. For Da Monk, all wealth is really the State's wealth - well, not Da Monk's of course; he DESERVES more than the rest of us. But you and me - we're abstractions. We need to work to the best of our ability and allow government to decide what we need.

And despite the overwhelming evidence from world history - not just our own - that governments are bloated, unwieldy, corrupt, inefficient entities that enrich only their own apparatchicks while subjecting those outside of the gravy train to pure misery - Da Monk believes Government Knows Best.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:11AM

"- health care and medical insurance costs in the US are out of control and rising DUE TO government interference, not DISPITE it."

If so, then why does every industrial nation with National Health care pay less than the US for medical care?

In 1994, when the US failed to get NHC, Switzerland had a system like ours, and about as expensive. They enacted National Health care. Now they have the most expensive NHC in the world, at 12% of GDP. The Us pays 17% and heading for 20% if it hasn't already gotten there.

The difference between 12% and 20% is $1Trillion a year. Not a decade, a year!

" So, it stands to reason that getting Barry and Company the hell out of the doctor's office, prices will at least stabilize, if not come down."

Then why was it so expensive before Obama? Why didn't your right wingers fix it when they controlled the entire US government?

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:06AM

You say, "If Republicans have suggestions on how to bring down health care costs, we'll listen!"

So the GOP says:

Allow portability across state lines;

IOW, a federal usurpation of states rights. Portability means exactly nothing. If it's so good, show where any state has medical care that is significantly cheaper, and just as good or better.

Enact tort reform;

First, you tell us just how much frivilous lawsuits cost this country. Pretty much very very little. But show us that's wrong. Otherwise, your suggestion is just more BS.

Enact malpractice reform;

Which means what?

Decouple health care from employers by offering tax incentives for individual purchase;

How will that cut costs? My employer provided insurance pays less for doctor visits than I do. My bills are typically double or more what the insurance company actually pays.

Allow citizens to create pools;

What do you think the insurance exchanges are?

Incentivize HSAs by freeing the restrictions and allowing them to roll over;

Which provides money for those who have money, and probably already have the infamous gold plated insurance.

Get serious about going after medicare fraud - the FRAUD in Medicare totals more each year than the top 7 insurance companies make in profits.

Back it up. I do not believe it.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:14AM

"Just as the point of OBamacare is NOT to bring down health care costs - which was the original reason for it, and now they've dropped the"

When the right killed the public option they killed the chance of cutting costs.

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:45AM

I miss your point. We don't want to have better government, we want to have LESS government. We want it TO DO FEWER THINGS, at least on the Federal level.

SpiralArchitect| 1.28.11 @ 1:25PM

Less is Better...

Palrak| 1.28.11 @ 12:14PM

What's wrong with cutting taxes and spending? They are very good, viable suggestions which provide a starting place to improve this government and benefit all Americans.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:13AM

Cutting taxes was just listed by the IMF as a reason the US credit rating may have to be cut. Tax cuts for the rich are one of the big causes that got us into this.

Cutting spending now to any significant extent will send us back into recession. You do know what a recession is, don't you?

Ghastlyone| 1.28.11 @ 1:13PM

Hey asshole, what do you do at home when you run out of money? Ah, that's right....you stop spending. Or is it you recieve a free gubmint check every month like all the other worthless leftists? Because the only people I know getting freebies from the government are the same people that vote lock step for worthless liberals.

Cutting taxes and cutting spending is what need to be done. It's been suggested non stop. I'm not sure what other magical ideas you're expecting to hear.

Tom in Michigan| 1.28.11 @ 2:35PM

You remind me of my dear, liberal brother who cries "Nobody is doing anything about terrorism!" Then, when I tell him what conservatives have tried to do; thwarted at every turn by the left which has brainwashed him in his union hall he cries, "But nobody's doing anything about terrorism!"

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:18AM

"You remind me of my dear, liberal brother who cries "Nobody is doing anything about terrorism!" Then, when I tell him what conservatives have tried to do; thwarted at every turn by the left which has brainwashed him in his union hall he cries, "But nobody's doing anything about terrorism!"

Your brother is just being nice. He should be telling you that your republicans did nothing about terrorism. Your people...make note of that.

The right did nothing, and they had complete control of the US Govt from 2001 till 2007. And after that they had effective control of anything relevant to terrorism.

But you don't want to admit that, do you.

Appleby| 1.28.11 @ 7:00PM

The only short, succinct suggestion John Galt ever gave works just fine for me:

GETTHEHELLOUTOFMYWAY.

Sam Vaughn| 1.28.11 @ 11:08AM

If you want to understand the European crisis and the developing US crisis, you only need two statistics. The first is the development of the ratio of government expenditure to GDP over time; the second is the level of government debt.
Half a century ago, the state accounted for around a third of the economy in most EU countries. It was highest in Austria at 35.7% of GDP. In Italy, Belgium and Sweden, it was just over the 30% mark; in Switzerland and Spain, it was even lower than 20%.
What has happened since then can only be described as an explosion of government activities. In today’s European Union, there is not a single country with a government expenditure to GDP ratio below 40%. Ratios in the mid-40s are the norm, and in some countries they are well above the 50% mark. In Britain, it now stands at 52.2%, in France at 55.9%, and in Sweden at 56.0%.
Such expenditure levels require enormous tax revenues, and finance ministers found raising them to be increasingly difficult. So instead they went into debt. According to the latest available data from the European Central Bank, general government debt in Eurozone countries stood at 79.2% of GDP last year. The financial crisis of the past years has obviously contributed to this, but Europe’s march into debt began decades earlier.
What we are witnessing today is the end game of the European welfare state model as described above. Of course, there are further complications such as Europe’s demographic change, its failed migration and integration policies, and the folly of uniting the diverse continent in a monetary union. But above all, the European crisis boils down to the crisis of the overblown, inflated state.

Richard Ong| 1.28.11 @ 4:00PM

Excellent.

Western governments of the last 80 years have acted like the two teenagers in a horror movie who hear a noise in the basement and decide to go down and investigate. They ALWAYS decide to split up and search and the audience ALWAYS knows this is a big mistake but they are powerless to reverse this decision.

Back in the real world, anyone with a lick of sense knows that growing the size of government is a huge mistake but the monster of voting parasites makes resistance to spending an impossibility. That monster is the equivalent of the movie director and all the helpers (Democrats) listed in the film credits combined, and taxpayers are the audience.

Only occasional rear guard actions and skirmishes are fought by the taxpayers but to no effect. So spending starts small and then soars. Taxes can't keep up and debt, at first manageable, soars too. Eventually, lenders stop lending. Result: the EU and the US go the way of Weimar and Zimbabwe followed by chaos.

Socialism is finally going to get its comeuppance, no thanks to any kind of a functioning defense mechanism in the host nation. The most pathetic, mendacious, demagogic appeals were long ago able to destroy all such mechanisms.

Attaching a property qualification to the franchise is one way to halt this or build a society with long-term prospects. Constitutional limits on spending another. Multiculturalism is a scam. So is the idea that no voter, ever, will vote with a beggar-thy-neighbor mindset.

old white guy| 1.28.11 @ 4:23PM

ultimately extreme violence will be be required to correct the stupidity that is creating the problem. and to hell with u.s. liberals who think otherwise.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:28AM

"If you want to understand the European crisis and the developing US crisis, you only need two statistics. The first is the development of the ratio of government expenditure to GDP over time; the second is the level of government debt."

If you had bothered to include the US levels of both the readers would realize the absolute nonsense of what you are saying.

In the US the 'level' of national debt had been falling since WWII, debt as portion of GDP. Until Reagan, that is, when it started up again. It was just under 33% when Reagan took office. By the time Clinton took office the national debt had quadrupled, and the percentage of GDP was 66%. When BushII took office the debt had gone down to 57% of GDP. By the time Obama took office the debt was heading for $12T and the debt was pushing 90% of GDP. Obama inherited a two front war and a near depression.

Eurozone 72% ain't as bad as US 90%.

Ireland, the poster child for economic collapse, was famous for it's low business taxes. So much so that McCain cited it as an example of economic success. The very next day Ireland was declared the first European Union nation in recession. Before the collapse the Irish govt was running a surplus.

Greece's problem is not so much spending, but tax evasion, which is endemic. Much like American corporate execs.

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:43AM

I thought that by "clean coal" he emant anthracite. But didn't he imply before he was going to shut coal down?

Dixie Pixie| 1.28.11 @ 11:49AM

Mr Stein, Have you considered that Obama and his administration is America's first "Stoner" government.
As a former teacher you must have run into individuals who was consistently high in class.

The Obama SOTU speech sounds just like something a stoner would come up with.
Believable even beautiful words at first glance but when analyzed and compared to reality the language falls apart to reveal a hallucinogenic structure.
Could it be the reason the language is so divorced form reality is the staff writers and Obama was high when the speech was written?

After all Obama has admitted to being a heavy drug user in the past.
Who said he ever stopped.
Could it be Obama is just role playing a President while high.

Just something to think about.

SpiralArchitect| 1.28.11 @ 1:28PM

Fail.

Some are stoned in class other slept through class.

It would seem you slept through the Clinton years.

Maybe Bill just didn't 'inhale' - ha!

Viva Mena Airstrip!
Cocain FTW! - a la Bill Clinton

Vince Foster LIVES!!

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:31AM

"After all Obama has admitted to being a heavy drug user in the past."

You do know Mena was a Reagan Administration operation, don't you?

Wayne | 1.28.11 @ 4:54PM

I agree, though Clinton is no doubt a stoner also. Drugs have ruined Obama's sense of reality. He is just the man behind the curtain.

Dixie Pixie| 1.29.11 @ 12:56AM

Greetings SpiralArchitect and Wayne

When I heard Obama state that we as a people should consider the visions of a 9 year old maiden as inspiration for a better government, I was convinced someone on the White House writers staff was smoking something a lot heaver than tobacco.
Who would want a government composed of Ballerinas, Princesses, Rainbow Ponies and dedicated to all things "Hannah Montana".

Then it struck me, Obama has crafted the perfect campaign strategy for the "Pot Generation".
The majority of the Left, Far Left, Progressives and out right Socialists use recreational drugs.
It is the Conservatives that use alcohol.
That means Obama hallucinogenic rhetoric makes perfect sense to the "Stoner" but is merely sounds like meaningless inspirational rhetoric to the Conservatives.
In short, Obama is just paying dues to his "Stoner" base while giving the Right nothing.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:33AM

"When I heard Obama state that we as a people should consider the visions of a 9 year old maiden as inspiration for a better government, I was convinced someone on the White House writers staff was smoking something a lot heaver than tobacco.
Who would want a government composed of Ballerinas, Princesses, Rainbow Ponies and dedicated to all things "Hannah Montana"."

Or a "Shining city on a hill"?

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:30AM

"After all Obama has admitted to being a heavy drug user in the past."

When did he admit that? Or did you make it up?

Now we know Bush was an alcoholic. And he used drugs. What evidence do you have against Obama?

ddwildcat| 1.28.11 @ 11:59AM

Ben Stein...I like you. No grandiose, over-the-top, verbose commentary (unlike my post). Just plain, simple, logical, common-sense opinions. Thank you, Ben!!

syd chaden| 1.28.11 @ 12:04PM

I used to be concerned that politicians didn't do what they said they would. Now, I am concerned that they might do what they say they will. The safest situation, I think, is when politicians do nothing but talk. Talking keeps them busy, but has no lasting effect. Remember, most of our politicians are lawyers, who, accordingly, will argue in support an agenda regardless of the consequence.

George F.| 1.28.11 @ 12:05PM

Grzmlyk, you got it right. I have liberal family members and they're deaf and blind to all facts. All they know how to do is criticize and blame.

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 1:55PM

Yes, George, I've literally been in conversations where they simply pretend I didn't say what I just said. it literally doesn't compute.

Because they think the answer to every question is "more government." Everything else is gibberish. Government Good, Free Market Bad. This is Marxism.

Of course the they ignore the inconvenient truth that government does not exist to be the Great Arbiter of All Things - it exists to enrich the people in power, and that is ALL.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:34AM

"Government Good, Free Market Bad. This is Marxism."

No, that's actually right wing economics.

Mike Boston| 1.28.11 @ 12:06PM

Ben wrote,"and so our wages must very slowly move towards parity with Chinese wages. This will be a slow, but painful process."
So your counsel is to rethink, retrench, and retreat?
I thought the whole raison d'etre of Capitalism was to raise up the poor, not to smash them on the "level playing field." Shouldn't we be trying to find the way to maintain our standard of living and improve the rest of the world's?
Might we not stop dealing with oppressive regimes using "Globalization" to reduce people to peons? Can we not return to the mind set of the past which taught us to make our own goods, and have no truck with Dictators? It seems that the Corporate tail is wagging the American economic dog. What's good for GM is good for America? They sold more in China last year than in the US. So they spend bail-out money overseas and cut American jobs. "Globalization" once meant improving the lot of people by spreading economic democracy worldwide. Now it means reducing the living standards of Americans to that of Chinese peasants. Why don't you lower your wages to those of a Chinese worker Mr. Stein? See how you like it.

Jimbo| 1.28.11 @ 2:29PM

Mike, I was wondering if anybody had missed that little comment (accidentally or otherwise). If American wages must gradually retreat to the level of the Chinese, are we to assume that prices will also "retreat" at the same pace? I don't think we really have to answer that question, do we? I recall a picture of Richard Nixon shaking hands with Mao and Reagan's speech in Berlin and saying "Be careful what you wish for..." We now face a situation in which the lower-tech jobs are migrating to a place where costs are lower (this is known as "Economics 101"). If we want to "bring back" these industries, we are going to have to build our own version of a latter-day "Berlin Wall" to defeat global free trade...ironic, isn't it? While North America made take pride in developing hi-tech industries one must remember that HI-TECH=LOW MANPOWER (in most cases). I hate to sa it, but somewhere, Chairman Mao is looking down (or up) and chuckling.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:39AM

"Mike, I was wondering if anybody had missed that little comment (accidentally or otherwise). If American wages must gradually retreat to the level of the Chinese, are we to assume that prices will also "retreat" at the same pace? I don't think we really have to answer that question, do we? "

Yeah, we do. That is the formula for turning the US into a third world country.

" We now face a situation in which the lower-tech jobs are migrating to a place where costs are lower (this is known as "Economics 101")."

We now face a situation in which high tech jobs are migrating to a place where costs are lower.

They are hiring engineers and programmers in India to do the work engineers and programmers used to do here.

Even medical care. They can send a digital X-ray to India where an Indian radiologist reads it and sends back a report.

"If we want to "bring back" these industries, we are going to have to build our own version of a latter-day "Berlin Wall" to defeat global free trade...ironic, isn't it?"

Yep. And that is the answer.

Jim Harned| 1.28.11 @ 12:06PM

Excellent, Mr. Stein is a smart man and in my opinion is correct on Obama.

I remember the movie Music Man with Robert Preston. He played the part of a front man; and in y opinion that is all Obama Jim Harned

jharp| 1.28.11 @ 12:29PM

"there is no such thing as clean coal"?

Wow, Wow. Did you fall and hit your head Ben? I cannot believe you told the truth about coal.

I am stunned.

Steve A| 1.28.11 @ 2:54PM

Yes jharp, As everyone here knows, dirty coal energy use is causing polar bears to be stranded on icebergs that will soon drift southward from the north pole as the glaciers melt & eventually crash into the Eastern coast causing a mass migration of polar bears to the Atlantic City area.

Chuck M.| 1.28.11 @ 12:57PM

I still remember electing our class President in the sixth grade. The two candidates each gave a speech. Both gave a good one, but the one everyone remembered went first (which may not have mattered). In his speech he gave us a list of promises he wanted to make, as if he could do it. The topper was "coke in the water fountains." Everyone cheered. Of course he followed those "promises" up with the truth that those were what he wanted, not what he could do. And then he did give us realistic promises to work hard to represent us, and so on. So what did everyone remember and vote for? The "coke in the water fountains." It was a landslide. I think that describes a large part of the voters today; they respond to what they like (especially if it suits their fantasies), and they leave their brains home when they go to vote. They have no reality checks.

Jon| 1.28.11 @ 1:17PM

Obama is undoubtedly the most inept man ever to sit in the oval office. Unless Chris Matthews should somehow become president. Yet even worse than his ineptitude is his lack of credibility or ethics.

Richard Ong| 1.28.11 @ 4:05PM

As Mark Levin observed over a year ago, Obama is PRECISELY the wrong man to be president now.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:42AM

"Obama is undoubtedly the most inept man ever to sit in the oval office. Unless Chris Matthews should somehow become president. Yet even worse than his ineptitude is his lack of credibility or ethics."

There is no way he can even compete for worst as long as Bush is still in the books.

PCP Smoker| 1.28.11 @ 2:02PM

Please go to sleep, forever, and don't name a successor.
Now this little bitch is disappointed with Obama's performance. Were you not one of the assholes wishing Obama to succeed? Did you not take to the web to criticize Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" statement? Well Obama did succeed and now the country is a wreck.
Go away creep and don't come back.

Tom in Michigan| 1.28.11 @ 2:17PM

Even Ben Stein doesn't get what's wrong with American education which is that the left has infiltrated it, following the teachings of Maxine Greene, Brazilian Marxist Paolo Freire, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and their cadre and suborned it from educating to indoctrinating our students. Until we drive these leftist destroyers of children out of the education system, there's little or no hope the once-greatest education system will recover.

Don't believe me though; research these people for yourselves (Don't be fooled though by Greene's credentials as she is one of the primary lesions in the cancer killing American education). Also study Antonio Gramsci who guided the left's "march through the institutions" of which education is only one.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:44AM

"Even Ben Stein doesn't get what's wrong with American education which is that the left has infiltrated it,"

There are 50 states in this country. Just how is it not one can do a good job? With a dozen haveing little or no union contracts in the schools how can they not be wonderful? Show how the red states are doing better.

JP| 1.28.11 @ 2:43PM

Once again, Obama and the Democrats solution for everything is government spending, and they continue to use the Democratic/Kennendy/Camelot fantasy storyline to further their socialist agenda -- now it is the "Sputnik Moment"! The American response to the Russians launching the Sputnik satellite was NASA and the space program. It involved massive government and military spending, but it has long been correctly heralded as a great program because of the jobs it created and the advancements made in science and technology that benefited both the public and private sectors. However, that entire program was based on a response to a cold war threat that had to be answered -- the Soviets gaining the upper hand in the space race and the use of satellites for communication and warfare. What is our "Sputnik Moment" that Obama has identified? I guess it's our economic cratering and almost 10% unemployment. And the solution? More government spending on high-speed rail and wind and solar technology. There are 2 problems here: 1) The response to the original Sputnik took place at a time when the US was an economic powerhouse and had the resources to spend on an endeavor such as NASA. Additionally, that endeavor created new technologies that had great benefits in aerospace, communications, and medicine; 2) The US is still an economic power but we have weakened ourselves through years of deficit spending by both democratic and republican administrations -- to the point that we do not have the resources to fund more massive government-sponsored endeavors. And the choices for this current endeavor -- high-speed rail and wind and solar power -- are industries that have proven to be losers in this country. Americans travel by car -- taxpayer-subsidized Amtrak has been losing money forever -- high speed rail will not change those habits. And the green-energy industry is not cost-effective -- compared to conventional sources, the energy cost per hour of these technologies does not cover the investment to install wind and solar hardware over the lifetime it is used. The only way it has survived is through state and federal government subsidies. Obama's conjured "Sputnik Moment" is a pathetic extension of the "Let No Crisis Go To Waste" ideology and will only lead to more wasteful spending by the government.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:51AM

"The American response to the Russians launching the Sputnik satellite was NASA and the space program."

NASA preceded sputnik.

" 2) The US is still an economic power but we have weakened ourselves through years of deficit spending by both democratic and republican administrations -- to the point that we do not have the resources to fund more massive government-sponsored endeavors."

Tax cuts for the rich and two wars are the real cause. Oh, that and conservative free trade economics.

Notice that the post WWII debt only grew as percent of GDP under tax hating republican presidents.

" Obama's conjured "Sputnik Moment" is a pathetic extension of the "Let No Crisis Go To Waste" ideology ..."

So, you believe bi-partisanship is not a good idea? You do realize that i"let no crises go to waste" was followed up by using it to create bi-partisan efforts, don't you?

gilbert| 1.28.11 @ 2:49PM

all passion, no merit. wasteful spending? it costs money to run the top 21st century superpower. you think the US is going to let you make some money and not take a cut? that's just bad business people.

the economy is looking good (see key economic indicators) and quite frankly, that is all that matters - all this talk of deficit, doom/gloom is so 20th century.

may god/buddha/allah bless america and every other nation in the world!

Lloyd Revalee| 1.28.11 @ 3:49PM

One big problem no one seems willing to discuss, is the union workers idea of the future. I one asked a union member if they had got what they wanted, just after a strike had been settled. The reply "Oh, we did pretty well, but just wait and see what we get next year". They seem to think that there is no limit to wages and benefits, with no thought about what it is doing to the lower paid workers and our economy . There has to be a limit to wages and benefits, which will limit the cost of products. Its too bad we can't limit the profit also.

Wayne | 1.28.11 @ 4:51PM

They learn when the jobs go to Mexico. Too late for them.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:54AM

"One big problem no one seems willing to discuss, is the union workers idea of the future. I one asked a union member if they had got what they wanted, just after a strike had been settled. The reply "Oh, we did pretty well, but just wait and see what we get next year". They seem to think that there is no limit to wages and benefits, with no thought about what it is doing to the lower paid workers and our economy . There has to be a limit to wages and benefits, which will limit the cost of products. "

When did you ask that union worker that question? 40 years ago? No, actually, I don't believe that ever happened. Nobody negotiates a union contract every year.

And it's high union wages that pulled up the rest of the workforce. When unions were strongest everybody benefited. As unions have lost strength workers in general have gone downhill.

There is only a limit to wages and benefits in a zero sum economy.

Wayne | 1.28.11 @ 4:49PM

There are things Obama can do. He can for example bring up that voucher plan that Carter vetoed. The one that brings competition to schools. That will do more to improve education and "No Child Left Behind" - or ahead. He can dispense with 90 percent of the rules and regulations that hinder US businesses, especially the small businesses with the innovation.

He can come out and say that Al Gore is full of crap and the man made global warming theory is a sham, then start the drilling. The US in a couple of years would be the worlds largest supplier of oil.

So don't let Obama off the hook. The problem has nothing to do with the promises and everything to do with the goal.

Rosco1776| 1.28.11 @ 5:06PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz_yw0kq3MM

4 minutes in old Ben gives his 2 cents. I don't pay attention to him anymore no matter how smart he sounds.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:57AM

I had seen this long ago. I had forgotten it. Shiff got it exactly right. In detail. Except he blew it on thinking the recession would be a good thing.

Rick| 1.28.11 @ 5:15PM

Ben, you should have been a singer - you always seem to hit the right note.

David Minnich| 1.28.11 @ 8:05PM

"so our wages must very slowly move towards parity with Chinese wages."
This is impossible, since people would starve to death here on those wages. China's level of wages can only work in China, where the cost of living reflects average wages.
Or, we could do what we did for the first 150 years of this country's existence, and fund our government through protective tariffs, thus sparing workers that competition. During those 150 years, America went from a motley crew of farming colonies to the world's preeminent economic power. And spare me the Smoot-Hawley lecture - even Milton Friedman pointed out that Smoot-Hawley had little, if anything to do with the Great Depression.
Unfortunately, the likes of Ben Stein are so wedded to an erroneous syllogism - comparative advantage is a win-win situation, free trade promotes comparative advantage, therefore free trade always results in a win-win situation - that the would instead promote starvation over protectionism.

Vern Crisler | 1.28.11 @ 8:51PM

Milton Friedman is not the best source for caused the Great Depression, or why it lasted so long.

Comparative advantage is what economics teaches. Obviously, we don't live in an ideal world, so political realities prevent full free trade, but the comparative advantage doctrine teaches us that it's where we should be heading, even if the goal is asymptotic.

In this country, high tariffs did a lot to stir up sectional hostilities, which together with slavery, lead to a civil war. No, we don't need that again.

Wages are a function of productivity. Real wages will be higher based on productivity, not inflation or artificial attempts to bring about parity.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 2:58AM

In this country high tariffs led to prosperity. Sectional hostility was stirred up by those who wanted to keep their slaves.

If wages are a function of productivity then why has productivity multiplied over the last half century, but real hourly wages peaked in 1973?

Economics teaches forces and techniques, it has nothing to say about purpose.

Vern Crisler | 1.30.11 @ 12:10PM

High tariffs did not lead to prosperity. Our greatest gains in prosperity came while tariffs were decreasing. In America productivity goes toward non-wage compensation (pensions, health insurance, etc.). Plus there are more workers entering the low end of the labor pool (including illegal immigrants), meaning the averages are pulled down. Economics is about recognizing unintended consequences, hidden costs, and much more. It has nothing to do with "force" and everything to do with purposive economic behavior.

Vern Crisler | 1.30.11 @ 12:44PM

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/15824.aspx

David Minnich| 1.28.11 @ 10:37PM

@ Vern

You miss my point, that free trade does not always equal comparative advantage. Economics teaches us that free trade most often involves specialization in absolute advantage - the seeking of the lowest-priced resources (such as labor) by businesses. Businesses base their operations on prices of resources, not opportunity costs of each country's use of these resources. Trade based on absolute advantage is not always a win-win situation.
Milton Friedman was a solid supporter of free trade and free-market economics, so when he says that Smoot-Hawley had little to do with the Great Depression, we can assume that he is speaking from fact, not ideology.
We are not going to have another civil war from tariffs and quotas; that is ridiculous.
With capital and technology mobile, productivity is now the same across the globe, within the constraints of natural conditions and transportation costs; therefore wages will be driven down to near the lowest common denominator by free trade. This is not my own thinking; the 19th century economists who developed the theory of free trade pointed this out, and Ben Stein seemingly accepts this.

Vern Crisler | 1.29.11 @ 3:37PM

“You miss my point, that free trade does not always equal comparative advantage.”

The (relative) immobility of capital and labor is a fact of life, as Ricardo pointed out. Natural resources and populations are still relatively fixed, so free trade is the best way to optimize output.

“Economics teaches us that free trade most often involves specialization in absolute advantage - the seeking of the lowest-priced resources (such as labor) by businesses. Businesses base their operations on prices of resources, not opportunity costs of each country's use of these resources. Trade based on absolute advantage is not always a win-win situation.”

What businesses do individually is irrelevant. They’re obviously going to go for maximum productivity at lowest cost, no matter where they find it. The concept of comparative advantage is talking about macro or aggregate benefit.

“Milton Friedman was a solid supporter of free trade and free-market economics, so when he says that Smoot-Hawley had little to do with the Great Depression, we can assume that he is speaking from fact, not ideology.”

He was factually incorrect about the Great Depression. For criticism of Friedman’s views, see Mark Skousen, *Vienna & Chicago* 2005, and Robert Murphy, *The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal*, 2009.

“We are not going to have another civil war from tariffs and quotas; that is ridiculous.”

Irrelevant conclusion. You were touting high tariffs as the cause of American prosperity: “America went from a motley crew of farming colonies to the world's preeminent economic power.” I was giving you the downside of high tariffs in history, not predicting the future.

“With capital and technology mobile, productivity is now the same across the globe, within the constraints of natural conditions and transportation costs; therefore wages will be driven down to near the lowest common denominator by free trade. This is not my own thinking; the 19th century economists who developed the theory of free trade pointed this out, and Ben Stein seemingly accepts this.”

Globalization is still constrained by factor immobility. The raw resources that help to produce capital and technology are not the same across the globe. Populations are still wedded to their countries of birth. As long as that’s true, it will be comparatively advantages for countries to specialize.

Ben’s point is right. It is a good thing if real wages are “driven down,” because that means real wages are also being “driven up.” The term “lowest common denominator” is misleading. At some point, the real wage rates of each country will (relatively speaking) be at parity. It would be a sign of the wealth of nations, or rather of the world.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 3:03AM

"What businesses do individually is irrelevant. They’re obviously going to go for maximum productivity at lowest cost, no matter where they find it. The concept of comparative advantage is talking about macro or aggregate benefit."

The immobility of population is irrelevant and resources are not fixed in location in a world where resources can be anywhere in a relatively short time and at little cost.

Vern Crisler | 1.30.11 @ 11:37AM

So why don't you go to China or Egypt and find a job there?

David Minnich| 1.30.11 @ 5:58PM

Vern, you've unwittingly validated my point - it's very hard for labor to move. Now reword this - "why don't corporations build factories in China or Egypt"? Uh, done all the time. Capital is mobile, labor is not.

Vern Crisler | 1.30.11 @ 9:29PM

If capital is so mobile, why does Florida do better at selling oranges and New York does better at selling apples?

David Minnich| 1.30.11 @ 10:17PM

The answer is simple - climate, which is not capital, but a natural resource (climate). The capital to grow oranges (or apples or whatever) is mobile across the globe.

Vern Crisler | 1.31.11 @ 8:36AM

Natural resources are part of capital.

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 3:04AM

"The term “lowest common denominator” is misleading. At some point, the real wage rates of each country will (relatively speaking) be at parity. It would be a sign of the wealth of nations, or rather of the world."

More likely the impoverishment of the nations and the world.

Vern Crisler | 1.30.11 @ 11:38AM

Countries that trade with one another grow prosperous together. Countries that isolate themselves (North Korea) suffer poverty and starvation.

David Minnich| 1.30.11 @ 5:48PM

This statement simply is not always true. And North Korea makes a wonderful straw man, but their problems stem from far more than autarky.

Vern Crisler | 1.30.11 @ 9:29PM

It is not a staw man. It's a perfectly good example of where anti-free trade thinking ends up.

David Minnich| 1.30.11 @ 10:19PM

Nonsense - by your logic, the United States from 1787 to the 1900s would have wound up like North Korea due to heavy tariffs and quotas. As I said, North Korea has far more problems - a completely centrally-planned economy, a political dictatorship, and limited natural resources - that it must contend with.

Vern Crisler | 1.31.11 @ 8:39AM

As I've pointed out, the tariff rate has been falling ever since the heights of the Tariff of Abominations, down, down, down. And that was throughout America's most prosperous period.

David Minnich| 1.31.11 @ 12:45PM

Tariffs were still much higher during that 150 year period then they have been during the last 30 years. Look at the stats for the last 30 years - real GDP growth and real per-capita GDP growth, by percent, has been the slowest on record, even though many beneficial economic policies (such as tax rate cuts, deregulation) occurred during this period.
Oh - from PhD Bob Powell - "it's incredible that anyone would continue to think the Smoot-Hawley tariff "contributed to the severity" of the Great Depression. Doing so requires ignoring that "Total Trade" (imports + exports) was between 0.4 and 0.8 percent of GDP from 1929 through 1941. And the trade balance over the 30s was relatively stable, about $50M +/-$50M.

Such a minuscule "Total Trade" downturn is about as likely to have tripped up the economy and contributed to the Great Depression as a human being would be likely to be tripped by an ant. The very idea is absurd."

BTW, tariffs are not the only tool to balance trade. There are more sophisticated processes being proposed, such as import certificates.

Vern Crisler | 1.31.11 @ 9:29PM

Bob who?

David Minnich| 1.30.11 @ 5:46PM

Standard economic bilge, so let's tear this apart, piece by piece.

1) Capital is mobile, labor is not. Vern is wrong saying that capital is relatively fixed.
2) What businesses do is completely relevant, as this is what drives actual economics, vs "macro or aggregate benefit" that only exists in the minds of economists.
3) It would have been impossible for Smoot-Hawley to have had any material effect on the Great Depression, as trade was a very small part of GDP at that time, and much trade was unaffected. The two sources Vern cites are ideologically nonsense.
4) If my conclusion about tariffs was irrelevant, so was Vern's bringing up the topic in the first place. Nice try, but this is a game often played by leftists, not "free" traders.
5) Capital is mobile, and natural resources are no longer locked into place thanks to modern modes of transportation. Only labor is locked into place due to factors previously mentioned. Vern is in a dream world here.
6) Parity does not mean wealth - it could just as mean poverty. Your assumption that this will create the "wealth of nations" is unsubstantiated by both fact and reason. At least you admit Ben is right, and that Americans can look forward to $2/hour thanks to "free" trade.

Vern Crisler | 1.30.11 @ 9:28PM

Please read those two sources you claim are nonsense. You would learn quite a bit instead of spouting Buchanan anti-free trade bilgewater.

David Minnich| 1.30.11 @ 10:26PM

I have studied enough the economics of the Great Depression; I do not usually waste my time reading what I already know will prove to be politically-oriented sophistry. However, I will entertain your request and read through the sources you cited, with as much a critical eye as my economics training will allow.

David Minnich| 1.30.11 @ 10:33PM

A cursory search show both sources to be from the Austrian school of economics. I am quite familiar with this branch of the field, having been a former believer (I earned my Master's at a libertarian-oriented economics department in the 1980s, when this branch of economics was super-hot). I am not encouraged, but will review them anyway.

Dan| 1.29.11 @ 6:50AM

necessity is the mother of invention
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Kingofthenet| 1.29.11 @ 4:27PM

So Ben wants us to make what Chinese workers make? Does that include Chinese Actors/Comedians?

Rick| 1.30.11 @ 10:46AM

Your a rasist!

Marc Jeric| 1.30.11 @ 11:45PM

Onward with communism!
In his State of the Union address Abu Hussein al-Mombassa (or wherever in Kenya that marxist Muslim was born) said that he wanted to "invest" (read spend) on the following;
1) Highways; the federal government already taxes the gasoline at 17 cents (or is it 27 cents) per gallon for the so-called highway fund; it seems that this fund is now largely spent on welfare;
2) High-speed trains; Americans prefer their personal cars for these reasons: a) they go door to door; b) they are ready at any time 24/7/355; they are never on strike; trains do none of that, and also they are operated by union thugs.
3) Education; that means more money to teachers unions which in 45 years have brought our education from the first in the world to the level of Zimbabwe, and the costs have tripled in real terms.
4) Green energy; that means wind and solar power. We have been working on these the past 50 years without success. They are super-expensive, unreliable, and environmentally destructive. No imagination can defeat the laws of thermodynamics. They also come from the sun's activities - the sun which is a continuous uncontrolled hydrogen bomb explosion. I was happy that he skipped the mention of ethanol - since that boondoggle pushed by taxpayers' subsidies has proven expensive, increases oil imports and food prices, and is destructive of environment.
5) Electric cars; he did not specify where the electric power would come from - wind, solar?
All in all, I for one was unimpressed. And - the bum made no mention of nuclear electricity!

David Minnich| 1.31.11 @ 12:48PM

Obama proposes seizing the future with - trains and windmills. What a joke. Hi-speed rail at blistering average speeds of as much as 68 mph, and ugly, expensive windmills producing tinkertoy levels of power. Pure hogwash.

weddingdresses | 6.27.11 @ 5:06AM

necessity is the mother of invention
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

weddingdresses | 6.27.11 @ 5:07AM

necessity is the mother of invention
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 4:27AM

is good

Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 4:30AM

is good

العاب | 4.11.12 @ 3:14PM

I have a friend in the used industrial equipment business. I ran into him the other day and asked how his business was doing

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|58 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|31 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|40 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|13 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|6 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|8 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|18 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|8 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa’s Mistake

Ross Kaminsky | 11:11AM

Bernanke: No Need to Reimplement Glass-Steagal

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Lerner Says She Did Nothing Wrong, Then Pleads the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 10:50AM

Anthony Weiner Running for NY Mayor

Kyle Peterson | 10:38AM

Morning Round-Up 5-22

Patrick Ryan | 10:01AM

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Ben Stein's Diary

Promises, Promises

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (155) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 1.28.11 @ 6:30AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.28.11 @ 7:27AM

PaulD| 1.28.11 @ 7:38AM

The Bishop| 1.28.11 @ 8:30AM

Tomas| 1.28.11 @ 12:58PM

Tomas| 1.28.11 @ 1:15PM

buckeyeman| 1.29.11 @ 11:04AM

Bob K.| 1.28.11 @ 2:43PM

Nancy in NC| 1.28.11 @ 3:44PM

Icrashgood | 1.28.11 @ 8:25PM

Ned| 1.28.11 @ 11:16AM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:16AM

Baby Driver| 1.30.11 @ 7:17PM

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:42AM

Redstateboy| 1.28.11 @ 3:14PM

old white guy| 1.28.11 @ 4:06PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:17AM

Baby Driver| 1.30.11 @ 7:19PM

George Kimball| 1.29.11 @ 2:20AM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:20AM

justasimplepatriot| 1.28.11 @ 7:28AM

Rick V.| 1.28.11 @ 9:21AM

buckeyeman| 1.29.11 @ 11:10AM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:23AM

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:49AM

old progrmr| 1.28.11 @ 3:49PM

BackToBasics| 1.30.11 @ 2:50PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:21AM

Mimi| 1.28.11 @ 8:15AM

Vern Crisler | 1.28.11 @ 8:38PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:36AM

Vern Crisler | 1.30.11 @ 2:15AM

David W| 1.28.11 @ 8:44AM

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:50AM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:43AM

Big D| 1.28.11 @ 12:28PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:37AM

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 9:07AM

cuban pete| 1.28.11 @ 9:18AM

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 9:23AM

Anthony| 1.28.11 @ 11:55AM

Bloefeld| 1.28.11 @ 11:58AM

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 1:23PM

Richard Ong| 1.28.11 @ 3:23PM

old progrmr| 1.28.11 @ 3:53PM

old white guy| 1.28.11 @ 4:11PM

Redstateboy| 1.28.11 @ 5:16PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:55AM

Donna| 1.28.11 @ 9:27AM

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:48AM

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 12:37PM

beebop| 1.28.11 @ 8:55PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:57AM

CWD| 1.28.11 @ 1:09PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 12:59AM

Tom in Michigan| 1.28.11 @ 2:33PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:01AM

da monk| 1.28.11 @ 10:23AM

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 11:13AM

Ned| 1.28.11 @ 11:30AM

Grzmlyk| 1.28.11 @ 12:03PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:11AM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:06AM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:14AM

mzk1| 1.28.11 @ 11:45AM

SpiralArchitect| 1.28.11 @ 1:25PM

Palrak| 1.28.11 @ 12:14PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:13AM

Ghastlyone| 1.28.11 @ 1:13PM

Tom in Michigan| 1.28.11 @ 2:35PM

Bob From District 9| 1.30.11 @ 1:18AM

Appleby| 1.28.11 @ 7:00PM

Sam Vaughn| 1.28.11 @ 11:08AM

Richard Ong| 1.28.11 @ 4:00PM

old white guy| 1.28.11 @ 4:23PM